Fresh on the heels of the entire Munich and Linux debacle, another story involving Microsoft and free software has popped up across the world, in Chile. A prolific magazine from the South American country says that the powerful Microsoft lobby managed to turn around a law that would allow the authorities to use free software.

An independent member of the Chilean Parliament, Vlado Mirosevic, pushed a bill that would allow the state to consider free software when the authorities needed to purchase or renew licenses. The state of Chile pays $2.7 billion (€2 billion) on licenses from various companies, including Microsoft.

According to ubuntizando.com, Microsoft representatives met with Vlado Mirosevic shortly after he announced his intentions, but the bill passed the vote, with 64 votes in favor, 12 abstentions, and one vote against it. That one vote was cast by Daniel Farcas, a member of a Chilean party.

A while later, the same member of the Parliament, Daniel Farcas, proposed another bill that actually nullified the effects of the previous one that had just been adopted. To make things even more interesting, some of the people who voted in favor of the first law also voted in favor of the second one.

The new bill is even more egregious, because it aggressively pushes for the adoption of proprietary software. Companies that choose to use proprietary software will receive certain tax breaks, which makes it very hard for free software to get adopted.

Microsoft has been in the news in the last few days because the German city of Munich that adopted Linux and dropped Windows system from its administration was considering, supposedly, returning to proprietary software.

This new situation in Chile give us a sample of the kind of pull a company like Microsoft has and it shows us just how fragile laws really are. This is not the first time a company tries to bend the laws in a country to maximize the profits, but the advent of free software and the clear financial advantages that it offers are really making a dent.

Five years ago, few people or governments would have considered adopting free software, but the quality of that software has risen dramatically and it has become a real competition for the likes of Microsoft.

Makes one wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes when it comes to the corruption of software procurement policies. It's particularly poignant because of the alleged affiliation the newly-elected major of Munich has with Microsoft and its decision to move its German headquarters to Munich.

It's disappointing to see Microsoft's unwillingness to let the market decide which is the better product, and instead preferring to corrupt the whole process as it did with the ISO approval of OOXML.

That doesn't make it right though. Especially when it wastes money which could have otherwise been spent on essential services and promoting economic equality.

No. It actually saves tons of money. Believe it or not, the time it takes to fight with free software limitations, bugs and problems as well as the learning curve and ongoing maintenance cost (especially if the developers drop dead) is no where near free or rational to adopt.

Some people don't realize that paid software offers support, provides better stability, is easier to use, decreases work load, and doesn't require as much training.

Why doesn't Microsoft make that case in its proposals then instead of paying off lawmakers to give it advantages over free software?

Clearly Microsoft fears competing on an even playing field, why else would they behave in this way. Microsoft hasn't changed its behaviour, and it never will from what I can see.

No. It actually saves tons of money. Believe it or not, the time it takes to fight with free software limitations, bugs and problems as well as the learning curve and ongoing maintenance cost (especially if the developers drop dead) is no where near free or rational to adopt.

Not according to the French police or Munich. They have saved millions by eschewing Microsoft and proprietary software.

productivity was dramatically affected after moving from Windows to Linux and professional personnel had to be hired in order to take care of computers running the open-source operating system.

They should have hired the same guys that did the migration for the French Gendarmerie.

Not only did they migrate 65K desktops in the same take it took Munich to migrate 14K, but they took a more sane approach: first migrate the apps and let users get used to the new applications in their old familiar environment, and then later on migrate the OS.

productivity was dramatically affected after moving from Windows to Linux and professional personnel had to be hired in order to take care of computers running the open-source operating system.

That article was proven to be fallacious. The person who was quoted as saying that turned out to be a single individual, specifically the newly elected major, who had been personally involved in Microsoft's decision to shift its headquarters to Munich. The Munich council (the body that actually makes the decisions) responded by reiterating its support for the shift away from the ubiquitous proprietary solution (aka Microsoft Windows/Office) to GNU/Linux.

It has parallels to what Microsoft is trying to do in Chile. Namely, bribing politicians in order to impose its expensive and vendor lock-in products onto governments.